To believe in forced castration?

[SchoolShenanigans]

Sorry if this has been done before, but AIBU to think forced castration should be in place for paedophiles and people of child bearing age who have been convicted of any form of child abuse?

I get people have bodily autonomy; but the protection of children surely comes first?!

Just read the thread where a couple have already lost one child to care, are neglectful to another (disturbed) child, with social services intervention, and now pregnant with another.

I also have a family member who has 6 children with different inappropriate fathers, in and out of prison, social services involvement and criminal convictions. Providing a shit childhood for multiple innocent children who will be affected for life.

Why are we so again castration as a mechanism to stop further reproduction in damaging environments?

In many cases, people with prior child abuse convictions just have subsequent babies immediately removed. What's the point? Just stop them being able to have kids and the problems sorted?

This is one of the many problems with punishments for rape, if you’re going to get twenty years or a full lifeterm you might as well murder them as well. If you’re a rapist you’re likely someone who enjoys inflicting pain, so you’re also likely to make sure it isn’t a quick death for your victim

@Swrigh1234

It’s funny how all the ‘progressives’ against this seem to just be fine with the state castrating and mutilating children in the name of trans rights.

Where has anyone said they're against castration of sex offenders etc but 'fine' with castration / mutilation in the name of trans rights?

You're assuming people with one opinion on a topic share the same opinion on another topic.

That's not how individual thinking works.

Something like this being a punishment will result in:

-fewer victims being willing to testify

• fewer convictions as juries(and judges through their directions) would be less likely to convict. Already a man's reputation and or/future is held in higher regard than any harm they might've done to women and children. Imagine if castration was on the table too.

• more serious assaults and even murders, as the penalty for murder would be less, plus dead people can't testify.

• fewer victims of DV coming forward and asking for support.

-more risk to DV victims if they do report/leave .

• fewer families in general asking for help and support

• even more distrust and fear of authority (police,SS, doctors, teachers etc) and parents trying to hide things

That's just the basics , without the slippery slope arguments.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/stefan-kisko-lesley-molseed-murder-26978250

Tell me that you have perfected resurrection? Because that is the only circumstance in which a civilised society can contemplate state sanctioned murder. Even one person falsely executed is one too many.

It is right and proper that society engage in the discussion about what is appropriate sentencing, but the minute that we start sanctioning torture, maiming and murder in the name of "justice" we lose the entire moral highground. If it's ok for us to do it because we believe in it, it's also ok for the Taliban, Isis, China, Myanmar and all the other despots to do it too - because it is also what they believe. The fact that they do it to people you might like is irrelevant.

Using the word subhuman is literally taking the words out of Hitler's mouth.

What will you do to women paedophiles?

Because none of those people have committed crimes.

If your point is that we shouldn’t give the state too much power because it will abuse it, then you could extend that to the right to imprison people, to spy on them - or to impose a lockdown. Most people are happy with these things within certain parameters, of course. The only fundamentally exceptional thing about the death penalty (unless you want to involve God) is that it can’t be undone.

I’m certainly not up for a bunfight - I am glad there are some sensible posters - but I thought I should clarify where I’m coming from seeing as you replied to my post.

Im a CA survivor and I've been raped so I've read into this lots.

I can tell you that castration would actually be far more dangerous.
If you look at the abusers who've had it done they've gone on to use objects to insert into victims.
Recently there was a case in America of a woman who used a rolling pin to insert into a little girl before killing her, these kind of things would become more common.
I have heard a story from a nurse friend of mine (not in the uk) who was assaulted with a toilet brush because his cell mate hadn't the ability to physically rape him. The story was horrifying.
Just because someone cannot sexually perform, the desire to hurt or injure people doesn't go, they may not climax with pleasure any longer but they'll still enjoy causing pain and suffering.
The only way that castration would work is people volunteering, so someone who was attracted to children lets say, but didn't want to ever engage in abuse or looking at images etc, that would be something that the individual would have to decide or you're just putting more children in a worse situation.

Sterilisation being forced on people, no matter how awful they may be as parents etc is too hand maids tale level control for me.
I understand it would stop lots of children being born into heinous situations, however, it's a slippery slope taking away the rights of women to keep their fertility.

I don't think you're unreasonable to think some people should never procreate, there is a school mum who is honestly one of the most shit parents I've encountered and she talks about having more and it makes sick, but just because I don't like how her DC are raised. (Dragged up) doesn't mean I should be dictating her future fertility and neither should anyone else.

@AlwaysGinPlease the term subhuman was used by the Nazis to describe and then murder people like my disabled son. And gay people. And gypsies. And millions of Jews.
If you are going to use that word then at least own it and acknowledge its history. And accept that most sane people will view users of that term as fascists.

And two more points:

• we already know SS make mistakes, and children have been taken away and even adopted and eventually it turned out that their injuries/symptoms were due to medical conditions. Not only would those parents lose their children forever, but they wouldn't ever be allowed to have another child.

• anyone that thinks that any law like this would be used to prevent harm and not used as money saving exercise, is very naive and deluded. Just think of all that money saved on benefits, meds, therapy, interventions, early help, ehcps , various funding,housing , disability payments and so on.

It is exactly fascist beliefs. The nazi term "untermensch" is German for subhuman.

It is possible to believe that certain actions are reprehensible and deserving of punishment through incarceration and also believe that those who commit such actions are still human and therefore have rights.

The fact that you use the exact terminology of the fascists of yore and argue that you aren't just shows either your ignorance or duplicitousness really.

Paedophiles were usually abused themselves so this kind of treatment would stop the cycle,

Whatever makes you think that?

This is a really good point- a potential death penalty/irreversible bodily damage incentivises offenders to kill their victims, and potentially anyone else who witnesses the offending.

Whichever way you fall on the death penalty issue (and I suppose by extension physically maiming people (?!?!?!)) the question isn't just does that person deserve the punishment- it's whether the justice system deserves the power to mete that kind of punishment. I'm anti the death penalty in all circumstances, but off the top of my head, any state 'deserving' that power would need to ensure the following:

-no chance of discriminatory bias (racism, sexism, antisemitism...) ever having the remotest possibility of unfairly influencing a conviction
-zero chance of corrupt police forces unfairly influencing the outcome of an investigation or trial
-zero chance of human error or misjudgement leading to a miscarriage of justice

And umpteen things I haven't thought of because I've had a glass of wine. If a state can't guarantee those things, then they can't guarantee no miscarriages of justice- what's more, they'd have to be able to guarantee them permanently, because a subsequent government could expand the scope of the penalty/relax the standard of proof required to impose certain punishments/any number of awful things.

Of course, this is totally impossible, which is why no state deserves the power of life and death and balls over its citizens.

Furthermore, it's jolly easy to moot this as an idea when you don't have to personally mete it out. Unless the OP is suggesting some kind of surgical procedure performed by an untrained person without anaesthetic, forced castration/sterilisation will require doctors, anaesthetists and other healthcare professionals to actually perform the procedures. Subduing someone against their will and chopping bits off them shouldn't be something we ever ask of people- I'm surprised it needs to be said.

Ultimately, human rights may seem inconvenient when they're protecting people you think are abhorrent. But anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time (or experiencing tragedy, like that woman in Australia) could suddenly be accused of a crime. And I doubt we'd be so delighted that the state had that kind of control at that point. 'Oh no, I only meant the WRONG type of person should lose their human rights. Not me!'

None of this is pedo apologism. It's recognising that bad things happen when states wield ultimate power- like innocent people having their balls chopped off.

And when a conviction is found to be unsafe, what do we do then? Sew them back on?

I also have a family member who has 6 children with different inappropriate fathers, in and out of prison, social services involvement and criminal convictions. Providing a shit childhood for multiple innocent children who will be affected for life

Your relative needs to rethink her decisions. Why haven’t the children been removed from her care? Poor children 😣

Your lack of knowledge about something for which you're advocating is truely terrifying

Where has anyone said that?

It’s funny how all the ‘progressives’ against this seem to just be fine with the state castrating and mutilating children in the name of trans rights

The two are not connected.

So, i'm against eugenics because you would be putting power into the hands of politicians and once they have reduced the birth rates of paedophiles and rapists, would move onto to robbers, muggers, drug users, kids on e-bikes, people with Parkinsons or MND... why stop there?

Lets sterilise the poor but who is the "poor"? those on benefits you cry, so we do them, who next? min wage!!! yep don't want those people not paying enough tax.... then of course there is "race" too many Blacks/Asians/Muslims watering down our white gene pool.

The wealthy elite have always sought to get rid of people they see as "beneath" them.

The Eugenics movement is very much alive and kicking, especially powerful in the USA, so will be coming here shortly.

Maybe it's better 10 innocent people are punished than a guilty one go free ?

@SchoolShenanigans

Its exactly comparable to what Hitler did, you need a history lesson.

He did not start with the Jews or even the Gypsy's, he started with criminals, the disabled & the insane, decent German people didn't like it, so he hide his early crimes, hence vans that drove around with their poor victims being gassed, out of sight.

Once you allow state sterilisation of criminals or undesirables, who will stop the state from moving on?

Have a referendum for it.

I thought this thread was a troll but I'm starting to think it's real, actually. The "if you don't believe in hanging and forced castration then you're a BLEEDING HEART WHO LOVES CHILD ABUSERS" insanity is actually pretty accurate for the right wing nutjobs.

@SerendipityJane

Maybe it's better 10 innocent people are punished than a guilty one go free ?
^^
Really?
What if one of these 10 was your son?
Brother?
Dad?
Best friend?
Stephan Kiszko?
Kind person who helped etc ?
It's the other way round

I’m assuming you’re joking.